Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 634 (KER)

Ajith S/o. Anirudhan v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-18

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, P.B.SURESH KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Jobin Sebastian, J.) Crl.Appeal No.1483/2018 and Crl.Appeal No.8/2019 arose out of the judgment in Sessions Case No. 514/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court - I, Irinjalakuda. Out of the said appeals, Crl.A. No. 1483/2018 is one filed by the 1st accused in the above said Sessions case challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 304 Part I and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas, Crl.A.(V) No. 8/2019 is a victim’s appeal filed under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the acquittal of the 2nd and 3rd accused in the said Sessions case. 2. The prosecution allegation can be epitomised as follows:- The deceased Amal and the 2nd accused are siblings. The deceased Amal, the 2nd accused, and their father (CW8) together conducted a textile shop from 2006 to 2009 and their business went on loss. In order to clear off the liability incurred in connection with the said business and also to meet the marriage expenses of the daughter of CW8, 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to Amal’s wife were utilised. At the time of using the gold ornaments of Amal’s wife, the 2nd accused, and the father of Amal, agreed to return 150 sovereigns of gold to Amal’s wife as and when the property, which stood in the name of the mother of Amal (CW9) is sold. While the said oral agreement was subsisting, the property which stood in the name of CW8 and another property which stood in the name of CW9 were agreed to be sold to a third party on 07.11.2015. However, CW8 and the 2nd accused did not intimate Amal about the proposed sale, and knowing about the same, Amal questioned the 2nd accused. Due to the said animosity, on 06.11.2015 at 11.00 p.m., inside the family house of Amal, the 3rd accused, who is one of the brothers-in-law of Amal restrained Amal by holding him from behind and in the meantime, the 1st accused who is the caretaker in the house of CW8, in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused, to kill Amal, stabbed on his left cheek and on the back side of the ear using a steel knife. The 2nd accused then hit and stabbed on the various parts of Amal’s body with a scissors-like weapon. The 2nd accused then hit and stabbed on the various parts of Amal’s body with a scissors-like weapon. Upon seeing the same, when CW1, Amal’s wife’s brother, intervened, the 1st accused stabbed on CW1’s hand and neck using the steel knife and hence attempted to murder him. Moreover, Accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted the deceased as well as CW1 and CW2 by beating and stamping them incessantly. Immediately after the incident, though the injured Amal was taken to Medical Care Hospital, Kodungallur, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence the accused were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 r/w 34 of the IPC . 3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. As the case was one triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities committed the case to the Court of Session, Thrissur. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, for trial and disposal. 4. After hearing both sides under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C ., and perusal of records, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed a written charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, and 302 read with 34 of IPC . When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution thereupon examined the witnesses on their side as PW1 to PW22 and proved through them Exts.P1 to P34 documents. The contradictions in the previous statements of the prosecution witnesses brought out from the side of the defence were marked as D1 to D4. MO1 to MO17 were the material objects identified by the prosecution witnesses and marked in evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C ., they denied all the incriminating materials brought out against them in evidence. Since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C ., the accused were directed to enter on their defence . But no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. 5. Since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C ., the accused were directed to enter on their defence . But no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused. 5. After trial, the 2nd and 3rd accused were found not guilty of the charges levelled against them and hence acquitted under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C . The 1st accused was found not guilty of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 307, and 302 r/w 34 of IPC . However, he was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 304 Part 1 and 324 of IPC and convicted. The 1st accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC . In default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. For offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC , the 1st accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 6. Heard Sri. P.K. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.1483/2018 as well as Sri. Rajiv Nambisan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.8/2019. We also heard Sri. Alex M Thombra, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records in detail. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/1st accused would contend that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and entered into a conviction on the basis of unreliable evidence of PW1 and PW5 who are interested witnesses. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of PW1 and PW5 is clouded with suspicion and the contradictions and improvements in their statements make their evidence unreliable. The learned counsel further urged that it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW1 and PW5 to establish the occurrence in this case. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of PW1 and PW5 is clouded with suspicion and the contradictions and improvements in their statements make their evidence unreliable. The learned counsel further urged that it is unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW1 and PW5 to establish the occurrence in this case. Per contra, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the victim in the appeal filed against the acquittal of 2nd and 3rd accused would submit that the trial court acquitted the 2nd and 3rd accused in a hasty manner regardless of the convincing evidence tendered by PW1 and PW5, the injured witnesses. According to the learned counsel, PW1 and PW5 being injured witnesses, their testimony ought to have been given a special weightage and the 2nd and 3rd accused should have been found guilty and convicted. It is urged that, as the offence alleged in this case was committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused, there is no justification in acquitting the 2nd and the 3rd accused. Moreover, it is contended that the trial court failed to notice the fact that specific overt acts are assigned to the 2nd and 3rd accused and the nature of the overt acts attributed to them are self-speaking regarding the common intention which they shared with the 1st accused who is the main perpetrator of this crime. 8. Before delving into the evidence adduced in this case, it is to be noted that the 2nd accused is none other than the brother of Amal, the deceased in this case. Accused No.3 is the brother-in-law of the 2nd accused as well as that of the deceased. A1 is the caretaker of the deceased’s family house. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of the FIS given by the brother of the deceased’s wife (PW1) who also allegedly sustained injuries in the incident. Admittedly, the incident in which Amal had lost his life occurred inside his as well as that of the 2nd accused’s family house. 9. The brother-in-law of the deceased who allegedly sustained injuries in the incident and who lodged the FIS in this case was examined as PW1. On examination before the court, PW1 testified that Amal, the deceased in this case, is his sister’s husband. Amal was running a textile shop on the eastern side of Kodungallur temple. 9. The brother-in-law of the deceased who allegedly sustained injuries in the incident and who lodged the FIS in this case was examined as PW1. On examination before the court, PW1 testified that Amal, the deceased in this case, is his sister’s husband. Amal was running a textile shop on the eastern side of Kodungallur temple. According to him and told that Immediately then, he along with his cousin named Anooj (PW5) rushed to the family house of his brother-in-law located at Padakulam. When they reached there, the front door, as well as the windows of the said house, were found closed and Amal was found standing injured in front of the said house, with blood oozing from his body. When PW1 enquired with Amal as to what happened, he replied that there occurred a wordy altercation between him and the 2nd accused, and following the same the 2nd accused stabbed him using a small knife. According to PW1, then he knocked on the door and window of the said house to make further enquiries. When the mother and sister of Amal opened the door of the house, PW1 along with Amal and PW5 entered into the hall room of the said house and made enquiries with the mother and sister of Amal. In the meantime, Amal entered into the room situated on the right side of the hall room. Suddenly, he heard a sound from inside the said room. When he rushed to the said room and looked, he saw the 3rd accused grabbing around Amal. Then the 1st accused attempted to stab Amal with a knife. Though Amal blocked the blow with his right hand, the knife struck his right hand, causing injury. Then Amal caught hold of the 1st accused and both of them fell down to the floor. The 1st accused then bit Amal on his both hand muscles. Then Amal struck the face of the 1st accused using a glass tumbler. Due to the said blow, the 1st accused sustained injuries on his face. Then the 3rd accused caught hold of Amal tightly. In the meantime, the 2nd accused stabbed Amal incessantly with scissors, and the same fell on the face, cheek, back, and chin of Amal. Then the 1st accused stabbed on the face and backside of Amal incessantly with a knife. The said stabs fell on the face and backside of Amal . In the meantime, the 2nd accused stabbed Amal incessantly with scissors, and the same fell on the face, cheek, back, and chin of Amal. Then the 1st accused stabbed on the face and backside of Amal incessantly with a knife. The said stabs fell on the face and backside of Amal . On seeing the same when he intervened to rescue Amal, the 1st accused stabbed PW1’s left hand and neck with a knife. Moreover, the 2nd and the 3rd accused beat PW1 on his back and head. Due to the blow, he fell down to the floor. In the meantime, the 2nd and 3rd accused stamped him repeatedly. Moreover, the 2nd and the 3rd accused also assaulted his friend Anooj (PW5). Then he heard a loud uproar and saw Amal staggering into the hall room and collapsing there. Then, he along with PW5, took Amal to Medicare Hospital, where the Doctor reported Amal’s death after examination. PW1 also sought treatment in the said hospital for the injuries sustained by him. Thereafter, PW1 went to the police station and gave a statement. Ext.P1 is the said statement. According to PW1, the knife used by the 1st accused to stab the deceased had a white colour handle. PW1 identified the said knife before the court and marked it as MO1. When PW1 was confronted with scissors, he deposed that the said scissors was the one used by the accused to stab Amal, and the same was marked as MO2. According to PW1, the deceased Amal was wearing a white colour shirt and a dhoti at the time of the incident. MO3 is the said shirt. According to PW1, the 1st accused was wearing a red and black colour dhoti and a saffron colour banian. PW1 identified the said dhoti and banyan and both the said items were marked as MO4 and MO5 respectively. PW1 further deposed that the 2nd accused was wearing a black colour dhoti and he identified the said dhoti before the court and the said dothi was marked as MO6. According to PW1, the 3rd accused was wearing a red and black colour dhoti and a shirt at the time of the commission of offence. PW1 identified the said dhoti and shirt and the same were marked as MO7 and MO8. According to PW1, the 3rd accused was wearing a red and black colour dhoti and a shirt at the time of the commission of offence. PW1 identified the said dhoti and shirt and the same were marked as MO7 and MO8. Moreover, PW1 identified a white-colour inner banyan as the banyan worn by the 3rd accused at the time of the commission of offence, and the same was marked as MO9. In the chief examination itself PW1 made a clarification that at the time when he gave Ext.P1 statement, he mistakenly said that it was A1 who stabbed the deceased using a scissor-like weapon. According to PW1, such a mistake crept in due to his special state of mind at that time. But actually, it was the 2nd accused who stabbed his brother-in-law with scissors and it was the 1st accused who stabbed his brother-in-law with a knife. According to PW1, apart from the accused his brother-in-law’s mother, father, sister, sister’s daughter, and the minor son were present in the said house. 10. When the minor son of the deceased was examined as PW2, he deposed that on the alleged date of the incident in this case, in the night, he along with his father went to the family house on a bike. When they reached there, the gate of the family house was found locked and hence both of them returned. When they reached near a water tank, her grandmother (CW9 not examined), called his father and asked to come to the family house. Accordingly, both of them proceeded to the family house and when reached there, the gate was found locked. Then his father dismantled the lock by kicking on the gate forcefully. Then the 2nd accused came out of the house and a quarrel occurred between his father and the 2nd accused. After the quarrel, his father went inside the family house and sat on a sofa. Then the 2nd accused who is his father’s brother, reached near his father and again quarrelled with him. Thereafter, there occurred a push and pull between both of them. In the meantime, the 3rd accused handed a knife to the 2nd accused and asked the 2nd accused to stab his father. Then, the 2nd accused stabbed his father and ousted him forcefully from the house. Thereafter, there occurred a push and pull between both of them. In the meantime, the 3rd accused handed a knife to the 2nd accused and asked the 2nd accused to stab his father. Then, the 2nd accused stabbed his father and ousted him forcefully from the house. According to PW2 after ousting his father, the 2nd accused locked both PW2 and daughter of A2 inside a room. 11. When the wife of the deceased was examined as PW3, she testified that she was at her paternal house at the time when the incident in this case occurred. According to PW3, her husband was running a textile shop along with her husband’s father and brother (A2). As the business went on loss, in order to clear the liabilities, her 150 sovereigns of gold ornaments were pledged. At the time of pledging the gold ornaments her father-in-law as well as the 2nd accused agreed to take back the pledged gold ornaments as and when their family property is sold. However, even after entering into an agreement to sell the family property, her father-in-law as well as the 2nd accused did not inform about the same to her husband and hence there occurred a dispute between her husband and the 2nd accused. While things being so, on 06.11.2015 at 10.30 p.m., her husband went to his family house along with her elder son Ishan (PW2) in a two-wheeler. Thereafter, when she contacted her husband over phone, he did not respond. Hence he telephoned her mother-in-law. Then her mother-in-law told that “ . Then she contacted her brother Ashish (PW1) and he told her about the matters transacted in this case. 12. When a neighbour of Amal, was examined as PW4 he deposed that on the alleged date of the incident between 9.30 and 10.00 p.m., while he was resting after having dinner, he heard a commotion from the house of Amal. On hearing the same when he reached the house of Amal, there was no one in the said house. After a short while, Amal came near PW4’s house and asked for some water. According to PW4, then a loud noise was heard and on hearing the same, Amal said that somebody is smashing and destroying his bike and after saying so, Amal rushed towards his house. Then he followed Amal. After a short while, Amal came near PW4’s house and asked for some water. According to PW4, then a loud noise was heard and on hearing the same, Amal said that somebody is smashing and destroying his bike and after saying so, Amal rushed towards his house. Then he followed Amal. Then he found one person beating on the window glass of Amal’s house using his hands. Thereafter, Amal forcefully opened the door of the said house and entered the house, and following the same, a commotion was heard. Then PW4 returned to his house. 13. Another witness who allegedly sustained injuries in the incident was examined as PW5. According to PW5, Amal, is his first cousin. The incident in this case occurred on 06.11.2015. On the alleged date of the incident after watching a film, while he was returning to his house on a motorcycle along with PW1 and when they reached near the by-pass road, PW1 received a phone call. When he enquired PW1, as to who made the said call, PW1 said that it was a call from Arun(A2) and Arun told that PW1’s brother-in-law had been stabbed and left outside. On knowing about the same, he along with PW1 rushed to the house of PW1’s brother-in-law and reached there at around 10.45 p.m. Then the windows and door of the said house were found locked. Amal, the deceased in this case was then found standing on the car porch of the said house, and blood was found on his body. When PW1 enquired, the injured said that there occurred a dispute with respect to the property and he was stabbed. There were marks of injury on his left hand. When Amal was told to go to the hospital, he replied that his son was inside the house. Though PW5 knocked at the door of the said house, it was after some time, the door was opened. When the door was opened he along with PW1 and Amal, the brother-in-law of PW1 entered the house. Then he enquired about the matters to the mother and sister of the deceased. In the meantime, Amal rushed towards a room. On hearing a sound from the said room, he also rushed to the said room. Then he found the third accused grabbing around Amal from behind. Thereafter, the first accused stabbed on the right hand of Amal with a knife. In the meantime, Amal rushed towards a room. On hearing a sound from the said room, he also rushed to the said room. Then he found the third accused grabbing around Amal from behind. Thereafter, the first accused stabbed on the right hand of Amal with a knife. Then Amal caught hold of the first accused and both of them fell down. Then the first accused bit on the shoulder of Amal. Thereafter, when the first accused woke up from the floor, Amal struck on the 1st accused’s face using a glass tumbler resulting in bleeding from his face. In the meantime, the 2nd accused stabbed on the face and various other parts of Amal’s body using scissors. When PW1 intervened, the 1st accused stabbed on the hands and neck of PW1 with knife. Moreover, the 1st and 2nd accused kicked PW1. According to PW5, when he intervened, the 2nd and 3rd accused kicked him also. Thereafter, all the accused together assaulted PW1. Then on hearing the loud cry when he looked, he saw Amal who was too exhausted collapsing in the dining room. Then he along with PW1 took Amal to the hospital. After examining Amal, the doctor reported that Amal is no more. PW5 identified all the accused before the Court. When he was confronted with MO1 knife, he deposed that it is the knife used by A1 to stab Amal. PW5 also identified MO2 scissors as the weapon used by A2 to stab Amal. 14. When the father of the deceased as well as that of the 2nd accused was examined as PW6, he deposed that, the 3rd accused in this case is his daughter’s husband and the 1st accused is a caretaker of his house. His wife’s family property has an extent of one acre and the same is situated at Aroor. Including his wife, there are six sharers for the said property. There was no dispute with respect to the said property when his son Amal died in the incident in this case. During the period of occurrence, Amal’s wife was residing in a rented house at TKS Puram. According to PW6, during that period, apart from his wife, the deceased Amal, Arun (A2), and Ajith (A3) were also residing with him. On the date of the incident in this case, his daughter and son-in-law (A3) and their daughter were also in the said house. According to PW6, during that period, apart from his wife, the deceased Amal, Arun (A2), and Ajith (A3) were also residing with him. On the date of the incident in this case, his daughter and son-in-law (A3) and their daughter were also in the said house. On the said day at around 8 p.m., Amal came to the house. But there occurred no altercation between Amal and the accused in this case. At that time, his son Arun (A2) was drinking liquor along with Ajith (A1) and Sajeev (A3). After a short while, Amal came to the house along with his two friends. At around 9.30 p.m., he heard a wordy altercation from inside the bedroom of Arun and the said confrontation was with respect to some money transactions. According to PW6, it was with respect to the money that would be received as sale consideration of the property at Aroor which was proposed to be sold. Hearing the confrontation he scolded his both sons and asked them to go and sleep. Hearing the same, the friends of Amal went out of the house. Thereafter, Amal, the deceased in this case also went out of the house. Then PW6 directed A1, Ajith to close the gate. At around 10.15 p.m., Amal came back with his minor son. By that time, the gate was locked. Then Amal broke open the gate forcefully and abused A1 in filthy language. Thereafter, Amal beat on the face of A1. Moreover, Amal took a glass tumbler and smashed it on the face of A1. Due to the strike, A1 fell down to the floor. Then the deceased Amal sat on the top of A1 and fisted him. When PW6 attempted to restrain Amal, his knee accidentally fell on the face of PW6 causing bleeding from his nose. Then Arun (A2) took a steel knife and brandished the same towards Amal to restrain him from attacking Ajith further. Then the knife struck on the hands of Amal. Moreover, A1 bit on the hands of Amal. Thereafter, Amal was ousted from the house and the door was closed. Immediately then, Arun, (A2) contacted the brother-in-law of Amal (PW1) and informed him about the matters that transpired. Arun also asked PW1 to come and take Amal who is creating chaos by standing outside the house. Moreover, A1 bit on the hands of Amal. Thereafter, Amal was ousted from the house and the door was closed. Immediately then, Arun, (A2) contacted the brother-in-law of Amal (PW1) and informed him about the matters that transpired. Arun also asked PW1 to come and take Amal who is creating chaos by standing outside the house. Thereafter, Amal along with Aasish (PW1) and one Anooj (PW5) knocked at the front door of his house and also smashed the window glass panes and broke it. Then his wife and daughter opened the door. Then Amal as well as PW1 and PW5 entered into the said house. Thereafter, they entered into the bedroom situated on the right side of the house. As PW6 felt exhausted he went to the eastern side room of the said house. 15. The evidence adduced in this case reveals that, as alleged by the prosecution, the incident in this case has three spells. The first phase started on 06.11.2015 at 9.30 p.m., when the deceased and the 2nd accused picked up a quarrel with each other in connection with the sharing of the sale consideration which would be received on the sale of the ancestral property of their mother. The evidence adduced in this case, particularly that of the oral testimony of PW6, the father of both the deceased and the 2nd accused shows that when the quarrel was about to cross its limits, he intervened and asked both of them to go and sleep. Thereafter, Amal, went out of the house and the 1st accused who is a helper in the said house closed the gate of the house as directed by PW6. 16. Thereafter, it was at 10.45 p.m., the second phase of the incident started when Amal, came back on a motorbike and forcefully broke open the gate after dismantling the lock. Thereafter, Amal uttered abuses and beat on A1’s face. The evidence of PW6 shows that thereafter, Amal took a glass tumbler and smashed the same on the face of A1 causing him to fall down to the floor sustaining injuries. The evidence of PW6 further shows that, thereafter the deceased sat on the back of A1 and fisted him incessantly and when PW6 intervened to restrain the deceased, the latter’s knee accidentally struck on PW6’s nose resulting in bleeding from his nose. The evidence of PW6 further shows that, thereafter the deceased sat on the back of A1 and fisted him incessantly and when PW6 intervened to restrain the deceased, the latter’s knee accidentally struck on PW6’s nose resulting in bleeding from his nose. Then the 2nd accused, another son of PW6 took a steel knife and brandished it towards Amal with an intention to resist him from further attack. Then, the knife struck on the hand and body of Amal causing injuries to him and resulting in bleeding. Thereafter, Amal was forcefully ousted and hence the second phase of the incident ended. 17. After the second phase, the third phase of the incident started when PW1, another brother-in-law of Amal, and PW5 came to the family house. The evidence indicates that after reaching Amal’s family house, PW1, and PW5, along with the deceased, entered the house, and thereafter, the final phase of the incident, in which Amal lost his life, occurred. 18. The prosecution as well as the defence is not challenging the fact that the incident occurred in three sequences. However, regarding the matters that transpired during the second phase of the incident, the evidence of PW6, the father of the deceased and that of PW1 and PW5 will not go together. Notably, PW1 and PW5 did not witness the second phase of this incident as both of them arrived at the scene thereafter. The evidence of PW6 reveals that it was in the second phase the deceased beat the face of the 1st accused and then hit on his face with a glass tumbler causing injuries. Furthermore, PW6 stated that the deceased sat on the 1st accused’s back and punched him incessantly. It was also during this phase, that the 1st accused bit on the hands of the deceased. The fact that A1 had suffered an injury on his face is established by the other ocular as well as medical evidence adduced in this case. The evidence of PW22 the Doctor, who was working as Chief Medical Officer at Medicare Hospital, Kodungallur, shows that on 06.11.2015, he examined the 1st accused and prepared a wound certificate showing the injuries noted by him in the medical examination of the 1st accused. The wound certificate prepared by him is marked in evidence as Ext.P34. The evidence of PW22 the Doctor, who was working as Chief Medical Officer at Medicare Hospital, Kodungallur, shows that on 06.11.2015, he examined the 1st accused and prepared a wound certificate showing the injuries noted by him in the medical examination of the 1st accused. The wound certificate prepared by him is marked in evidence as Ext.P34. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW22, the Doctor who treated the 1st accused and Ext.P34 wound certificate issued by him clearly reveals that the 1st accused suffered a triangle-shaped injury on his forehead and over the root of his nose. The injury was ‘Y’ shaped having a dimension of 1.05 x 0.35 cm, while the two arms had an injury with dimensions of 0.75 x 35 x 35 cm and 1 x 0.2 x 0.35 cm respectively. Therefore, the fact that the 1st accused sustained an injury on his face by the hands of the deceased as the latter smashed his face using a glass tumbler requires no further proof. 19. Now the crucial question is whether the said injury was inflicted by the deceased in the second phase of the incident or in the last phase. As we have already stated, the evidence of PW6 shows that the deceased slapped the 1st accused, smashed a glass tumbler on his face, sat on his back, and repeatedly hit him during the second phase. However, the case of PW1 and PW5, who allegedly sustained injury in the third phase testified that all these acts were committed by the deceased during the third phase. The answer to the question during which phase of the incident the deceased smashed the face of the 1st accused using a glass tumbler has much relevance as the same has a significant impact in revealing the credibility of the ocular evidence proffered by PW1 and PW5, the injured witnesses. 20. While considering the said question, it is noteworthy that the evidence of PW6, that it was during the course of the 2nd phase of the incident, the deceased inflicted injury on the 1st accused by using a glass tumbler remains unchallenged from the side of prosecution as well as from the side of the defence. It is true that PW6 was declared hostile to the prosecution by permitting the prosecutor to put questions to him in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is true that PW6 was declared hostile to the prosecution by permitting the prosecutor to put questions to him in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. But it cannot go unnoticed that in the trial court judgment itself, it is specifically stated that, the manner in which PW6 was declared hostile itself is incorrect. During chief examination, PW6 deposed that when the door was opened, the deceased, PW1, and PW5 entered into the house and thereafter, they barged into a room situated on the right side of the hall room. Following the said answer, the learned Prosecutor put a question that whether PW6 stated to the Police that Amal alone had entered the room and PW6 replied that he had not given such a statement to the Police. Then the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission from the learned Sessions Judge to permit him to put questions to PW6 as provided under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act and permission was granted. However, later, when the investigating officer who recorded the statement of PW6 was examined as PW20, no attempt was seen made by the prosecution to prove abovesaid contradiction. In short, it is gatherable that the learned Sessions Judge granted permission to the Prosecutor to put questions to a prosecution witness in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act on the basis of a statement given by him in his evidence before court which was actually not later proved as a statement contradictory to the statement given to the Police. Moreover, the evidence given by PW6 regarding the matters which he allegedly witnessed remains unchallenged from the side of the prosecution even though the trial judge permitted the prosecution to put questions to him as provided under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, there is no impropriety or illegality in acting on the evidence of a hostile witness if it appears to be convincing and reliable. By a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that there is no need to eschew the entire evidence of a hostile witness from consideration. On the other hand, the court can very well sift grain from the chaff and can act upon those parts of the evidence which appear to be reliable. By a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that there is no need to eschew the entire evidence of a hostile witness from consideration. On the other hand, the court can very well sift grain from the chaff and can act upon those parts of the evidence which appear to be reliable. The grant of permission by a trial court under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act permitting a party to put questions to his own witness which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party does not amount to an adjudication by the court as to the veracity of the witness. 21. In the case at hand, as already pointed out, the evidence of PW6 regarding the matters that transpired during the second phase of the incident, in this case, remains unchallenged from the side of the prosecution as well as the defence. Not even a suggestion is seen put from the side of the prosecution that the evidence of PW6 regarding the matters that transpired in the second phase of the incident is false though the prosecution was permitted to put questions as spelt out in Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the prosecution failed to point out or prove any contradiction or improvements of even minor nature in the evidence of PW6 though he was examined in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. If the prosecution has got a case that the incident of smashing of glass tumbler on the face of A1 had happened during the third phase of the incident, the prosecution should definitely have challenged the version of PW6 and at least a suggestion must have been put to him that the said incident had occurred in the third phase of the incident. Therefore, we find no reason to discard the evidence of PW6 regarding the matters that transpired during the course of the second phase of the incident in this case. 22. More pertinently, when PW1 was examined he deposed that after entering the deceased’s family house, the deceased entered the nearby bedroom while he along with PW5 were talking with the sister and the mother of the deceased. 22. More pertinently, when PW1 was examined he deposed that after entering the deceased’s family house, the deceased entered the nearby bedroom while he along with PW5 were talking with the sister and the mother of the deceased. According to PW1, immediately then he heard a loud noise emanating from the bedroom and when he entered into the said bedroom he saw the 3rd accused caught hold of the deceased from his backside and the 1st accused attempting to stab his brother-in-law with a knife. He further deposed that in the meantime, the deceased caught hold of the 1st accused, and both of them fell down. Then the 1st accused bit both the hands of the deceased. According to PW1, it was thereafter, the deceased took a glass tumbler and struck the first accused's face using the same. However, during cross-examination, PW1 admitted that when Ext.P1 statement was given he did not state to the Police that the 3rd accused caught hold of the deceased from his backside and the 1st accused attempted to stab the deceased using a knife. Similarly, he further admitted that while giving Ext.P1 statement he did not state to the Police that the 1st accused bite on both the hands of the deceased as well as the deceased hit on the face of the 1st accused using a glass tumbler. Of course, we are not oblivious that an FIS need not be an exhaustive encyclopedia of the events. No legal principle mandates that a first informant must provide a comprehensive, detailed depiction of the incident, akin to a videographic recording, even if he witnessed the occurrence. Every minute detail including each and every overt act need not be stated while giving a statement with an intention to set the law in motion. However, in the case at hand, when the evidence of PW6 shows that the abovementioned acts were committed by the deceased in the second phase of the incident, the omission in Ext.P1 statement assumes some significance. Although the prosecution attempted to mitigate the omissions while lodging Ext. P1 FIS, by highlighting that PW1 mentioned the overt acts in the subsequent statement, the fact remains that PW1’s subsequent statement was taken on 08.08.2016, after the inquest. Obviously the bite marks would have been revealed in the inquest. Although the prosecution attempted to mitigate the omissions while lodging Ext. P1 FIS, by highlighting that PW1 mentioned the overt acts in the subsequent statement, the fact remains that PW1’s subsequent statement was taken on 08.08.2016, after the inquest. Obviously the bite marks would have been revealed in the inquest. Therefore nobody could be blamed if it is doubted that the subsequent statement of PW1 was crafted to account for the said injuries . Therefore, we are of the view that the omission in Ext.P1 statement that the deceased beat on the face of the accused using a glass tumbler is a serious one especially when the evidence of PW6 that the said act was committed by the deceased in the second phase of the incident stands unchallenged. 23. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 and PW5 shows that the incident in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries including the stab injury inside the room situated on the right side of the hall room of the family house of the deceased. Their evidence shows that it was inside the said room the deceased also struck A1’s face with a glass tumbler. On the other hand, the evidence of PW6 is that it was inside the hall room of the house the deceased beat the face of A1 with a glass tumbler and that too in the second phase of the incident. In order to ascertain whether the case of PW1 and PW5 or that of PW6 is more probable. We have meticulously analysed the other evidence adduced in this case. On close scrutiny of the evidence of PW20, the investigating officer, it can be seen that he did not have a case that at the time when he prepared Ext.P6 scene mahazar, he found any pieces of glass tumbler inside the bedroom situated on the right side hall room of the said house. Similarly, when the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who assisted PW20 in preparing Ext.P6 scene mahazar was examined as PW18, he categorically deposed that in the sit-out, dining hall and the bedroom situated on the southeastern side of the dining hall of the deceased’s house are the places of occurrence in this case. He gave a general statement that some glass pieces and pieces of glass tumbler were found at the scene of occurrence without specifying the exact room from where the pieces of glass tumbler were found. He gave a general statement that some glass pieces and pieces of glass tumbler were found at the scene of occurrence without specifying the exact room from where the pieces of glass tumbler were found. However, a perusal of Ext.P6 scene mahazar shows that the pieces of glass tumbler were found on the floor of the dining hall. PW20, the Circle Inspector who prepared Ext. P6 did not specifically testify to this fact, despite its inclusion in the mahazar. Had the investigating officer testified regarding the fact that pieces of glass tumbler were found in the hall room, it could have been considered as evidence especially as the same is a fact perceived by him through his own senses. We are cognizant that mahazar is not a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, we cannot use the same to enter into a conclusion that pieces of glass tumbler were found in the hall room on the basis of such a statement in the scene mahazar. Therefore, the statement in the mahazar, which was not specifically deposed by PW20 at the time of trial cannot lead to a conclusive finding that broken glass tumbler pieces were found in the hall. However, it cannot be ignored that the investigating officer is not having a case that any glass tumbler pieces were found in the bedroom. Moreover, when PW1 was examined, to a definite question put to him whether he had noticed any glass pieces in the room he replied with a vague answer that he did not care. More pertinently, he added that glass pieces were found in the hall room. Similarly when PW5, the occurrence witness deposed that in the visiting hall, glass pieces were found shattered and he further deposed that “ (he did not find glass pieces lying elsewhere inside the house). Therefore, we find no reason to doubt PW6’s testimony that the deceased struck A1’s face with a glass tumbler inside the hall room. That being the case, PW6’s evidence that this act occurred during the second phase of the incident is also credible, particularly as both sides did not challenge that specific assertion. Therefore, we find no reason to doubt PW6’s testimony that the deceased struck A1’s face with a glass tumbler inside the hall room. That being the case, PW6’s evidence that this act occurred during the second phase of the incident is also credible, particularly as both sides did not challenge that specific assertion. When the evidence of the PW6 in that aspect is believed, the same will consequently render the evidence of PW1 and PW5 that the deceased beat on the A1’s face in the third phase of the incident, to be false which will tell much upon the credibility of both the said witnesses. 24. As already stated in order to prove the occurrence in this case prosecution is mainly harping on the evidence of PW1 and PW5. Admittedly, PW1 is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased. Though relationship is not a criterion to discard the evidence of a witness, while acting on the evidence of a relative witness the court must be very cautious. Nonetheless, a relative witness will not likely implicate an innocent person as an accused, in the case of murder of his relative, as doing so, would allow the true perpetrator to escape from punishment. Moreover, in the case at hand the evidence of PW1 has to be accorded with a special weightage as he also had sustained injury in the incident. Even the defence is not having a case that PW1 was not present at the crime scene when the incident occurred. However, being a relative witness and as the incident in this case allegedly stemmed in connection with a dispute with respect to the sale of a family property and the sharing of the sale consideration, the chance of PW1 having an interest in the outcome of this case cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 has to be acted upon with much care and circumspection. 25. Reverting back to the evidence of PW1 and PW5 it can be seen that both of them deposed that upon arriving at the deceased’s house they found the deceased standing in front of the house, injured, with blood exuding from his body. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 has to be acted upon with much care and circumspection. 25. Reverting back to the evidence of PW1 and PW5 it can be seen that both of them deposed that upon arriving at the deceased’s house they found the deceased standing in front of the house, injured, with blood exuding from his body. The detailed version of PW1 is that on the alleged date of the incident, at 10:50 pm, the 2nd accused phoned him, stating that his brother-in-law, Amal, had been stabbed and thrown out, and if he wants can come and collect him. According to PW1, immediately then, he and his cousin, Anooj (PW5), went to his brother-in-law’s family house and when reached there, they saw the front door and windows of the said house remained closed, and his brother-in-law was found standing in front of the said house with blood oozing from his body. When PW1 enquired his brother-in-law as to what happened his brother-in-law said that there occurred a wordy altercation between him and the 2nd accused and following the same the 2nd accused stabbed him using a small knife. Then he knocked on the door and window of the said house to make further enquiries. 26. On the other hand, when an independent witness who is a close neighbour of the deceased was examined as PW4, what he deposed is that prior to the incident resulting in Amal’s death, between 9.30 and 10.00 p.m., while he was taking rest after having dinner, he heard a commotion from the house of Amal, the deceased in this case, and a short while later, Amal came to his house and asked for water. Then a loud noise emanated from Amal’s family house and on hearing the same, Amal told that somebody is smashing and destroying his bike. After saying so, Amal rushed towards his house and PW4 also followed him. According to PW4, then he found two persons striking the window glass of Amal’s house using their hands. 27. The version of PW1 and PW5 is against the version of PW4 who is an independent witness. The evidence of PW4 reveals that it was on hearing a loud noise from the deceased’s family house the deceased rushed there saying that somebody was vandalizing his motorbike. 27. The version of PW1 and PW5 is against the version of PW4 who is an independent witness. The evidence of PW4 reveals that it was on hearing a loud noise from the deceased’s family house the deceased rushed there saying that somebody was vandalizing his motorbike. Moreover, the evidence of PW4 shows that he also followed the deceased and when reached the deceased’s family house he found two persons violently striking the windows of the said house. In short, the evidence of PW4 clearly shows that the deceased was with him at PW4’s house when PW1 and PW5 reached at deceased’s family house. The evidence of PW4 in the above regard remains unchallenged from both sides and notably, PW4 is a witness loyal to the prosecution. The evidence of PW4 shows that it was after PW1 and PW5 reached the house of the deceased, and after started to knock violently on the window glass panes, the deceased Amal proceeded to his family house with haste. Therefore, the version of PW1 and PW5 that on arriving at the crime scene they found the deceased Amal standing injured in front of the family house is established to be false. Of course, the same will cast serious doubt regarding the credibility of the evidence of PW1 and PW5. 28. Moreover, a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW5 clearly shows that, rather than taking the injured deceased to the hospital they did is they along with the deceased created a horrendous situation at the place of occurrence by smashing the window glass panes of the said house. During cross-examination, PW1 and PW5 admitted that the window glass panes were broken due to their act. The evidence of PW4 clearly shows that window glass panes were smashed and broken violently by PW1 and PW5. Similarly, the evidence of PW1 and PW5 shows that both of them got entry inside the house along with the deceased when the mother and sister of the deceased opened the door. Their evidence further reveals that after entering the house, the deceased barged into the room where the material part of the incident allegedly occurred. The fact that none of the accused came out of the said room even after repeated knocking and violent smashing on the window glass itself shows that they were scared of PW1, PW5, and the deceased. Their evidence further reveals that after entering the house, the deceased barged into the room where the material part of the incident allegedly occurred. The fact that none of the accused came out of the said room even after repeated knocking and violent smashing on the window glass itself shows that they were scared of PW1, PW5, and the deceased. It was on convincing that there was no way out, the mother and the sister of the deceased opened the door. Therefore, it is apparent that PW1, PW5, and the deceased got entry into the said house after creating a horrendous situation and they are the real aggressors. 29. It is true that PW1 and PW5 have a version that they knocked at the window glass and attempted to get entry into the said house as they were anxious about the child of the deceased (PW2) who was inside the said house. However, the said version of PW1 and PW5 is quite unbelievable. It is noteworthy that there is nothing to show that PW1 and PW5 were aware of the fact that PW2 the child of the deceased was inside the said house. On examination before the court, PW1 admitted that he had not stated to the Police that he was aware that the son of the deceased was inside the said house. Similarly, though PW1 deposed that the deceased had told that his child was inside the house, during the cross-examination he admitted that he had not stated to the Police that his brother-in-law told him that his child was inside the said house. Moreover, PW5 also admitted that he had not stated to the Police that PW2, the son of the deceased was inside the house of the deceased. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to refer to the evidence of PW4, the neighbour to whose house the deceased rushed after the second phase of the incident. As already mentioned, the evidence of PW4 shows that on hearing a sound from the family house of the deceased, the deceased told PW4 that somebody is vandalizing his car and concerned about the same, the deceased rushed to his house. PW4 does not have a case that the deceased had told anything about his child. As already mentioned, the evidence of PW4 shows that on hearing a sound from the family house of the deceased, the deceased told PW4 that somebody is vandalizing his car and concerned about the same, the deceased rushed to his house. PW4 does not have a case that the deceased had told anything about his child. Moreover, the evidence of PW4 further indicates that PW1 and PW5 started to violently beat on the window glass panes prior to the arrival of the deceased at his house, otherwise, PW4 as well as the deceased ought not have heard the loud sound from the deceased’s house. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 and PW5 that the deceased told them that his child was inside the house and that is what prompted them to beat on the window glass panes is quite unbelievable. 30. The most crucial aspect which cannot be overlooked in this case is that on examination before the court what PW1 deposed is that when the 3rd accused caught hold of his brother-in-law forcefully, the 2nd accused stabbed his brother-in-law incessantly with scissors and the same fell on the face, cheek, back, and chin of his brother-in-law’s body. It was thereafter, the 1st accused stabbed his brother-in-law incessantly with a knife. Undisputedly, the above evidence of PW1 is the crucial evidence regarding the main overt acts of the accused which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased. However, in the chief examination itself, he clarified that while giving Ext.P1 FIS he mistakenly stated that it was the 1st accused who stabbed his brother-in-law using scissors. Similarly, in the cross-examination, he admitted that while giving Ext.P1 statement he did not state that it was the 1st accused who stabbed his brother-in-law with a knife and it was the 2nd accused who stabbed the deceased with a scissor. It is patently evident that the testimony of PW1 regarding the overt acts attributed to the accused culminating in the death of the deceased is contradictory with his version in Ext.P1 FIS. Though PW1 had admitted such a contradiction he gave an explanation that such a contradictory statement happened to be given to the Police as he was in a perplexed mood after the incident. However, we cannot accept the said explanation as such. Though PW1 had admitted such a contradiction he gave an explanation that such a contradictory statement happened to be given to the Police as he was in a perplexed mood after the incident. However, we cannot accept the said explanation as such. The contradictory statement given by PW1 is not with respect to the minute details of a case but rather regarding the material aspect of the incident. We have already found that the evidence of PW1 regarding several matters is established to be untrue. When viewed under the said background, we are of the view that the said contradiction also assumes much importance while considering the reliability of the evidence of PW1. 31. Furthermore, when PW1 was examined he admitted that he did not state to the Police that his brother-in-law was stabbed while his brother-in-law was caught hold by the 3rd accused. Similarly, it is proved that when he had given Ext.P1 FIS, he failed to state that his brother-in-law caught hold of the 1st accused, the 1st accused and his brother-in-law fell down to the floor, the 1st accused bit on both hands of the brother-in-law, his brother-in-law beat on the face of A1 using a glass tumbler, the 3rd accused caught hold of his brother-in-law, the 2nd accused stabbed the deceased using scissors, the 1st accused stabbed the deceased using a knife etc. Ofcourse all these omissions in the FIS stand proved when the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodungallur, who recorded Ext.P1 statement was examined as PW21. On the basis of the above discussions, we have no hesitation in holding that neither PW1 nor PW5 is a sterling witness to act upon their evidence to prove the occurrence without corroboration. 32. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 and PW5 reveals that after entering the house, the deceased barged into the bedroom where the accused were present, while PW1 and PW5 remained in the hall room engaged in enquiring with the deceased’s mother and sister. According to PW1 and PW5, while they were talking with the deceased’s mother and sister, they heard a loud noise from inside the bedroom, this evidence suggests that something significant transpired in the meantime. However, there is no evidence as to what was actually transpired inside the said room at that time. According to PW1 and PW5, while they were talking with the deceased’s mother and sister, they heard a loud noise from inside the bedroom, this evidence suggests that something significant transpired in the meantime. However, there is no evidence as to what was actually transpired inside the said room at that time. The said aspect also assumes importance when viewed in conjunction with the contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW5 regarding the overt acts attributed to the accused. We find it unsafe to rely solely on the evidence of PW1 and PW5 to prove the occurrence especially when those witnesses fall into the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable witnesses. Therefore, this Court has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial to act upon the evidence of PW1 and PW5. However, convincing evidence or materials are lacking in this case to lend corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and PW5. Therefore, it is manifest that the prosecution failed to convincingly prove the occurrence and in establishing the charges levelled against the accused. Resultantly, Crl.Appeal No.1483/2018 is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the 1st accused in S.C. No.514/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I and 324 of IPC are set aside. Consequently, Crl.Appeal (V) No.8/2019 challenging the order of acquittal of accused No.2 and 3 in the abovesaid Sessions case stands dismissed.